DOCSLIB.ORG

Alabak Conopy Gap Study Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alabak Conopy Gap Study Final Report An evaluation of canopy gaps in restoring wildlife habitat in second growth forests of Southeastern Alaska1 Paul Alaback FINAL REPORT February 20, 2010 1 A cooperative project with The Nature Conservancy-Alaska, Thorne Bay Ranger District and Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, and POWTEC. Executive Summary We report on our initial findings from a two year study on a 20-year remeasurement of canopy gap treatments in second growth forests on Prince of Wales Island in Southeastern Alaska. Seventy-six gaps were selected for sampling representing a broad geographic, and ecological range of stand conditions throughout the region. Our analysis of these plots suggest that canopy gaps represent one of the most effective techniques for long-term improvement of habitat for deer and associated wildlife species in second growth forests on Prince of Wales. Our data shows statistically significant increases in species diversity, understory cover, forb biomass, and shrub annual growth for gap plots as compared to either thinned or unthinned controls. Canopy gap treatments create habitats that are on average 4 times the deer carrying capacity of our thinned second growth stands in the summer or over 8 times the carrying capacity of thinned sites in the winter. Within a gap there is as much summertime blueberry (Vaccinium) biomass as in typical old growth forests. A simple model (TONGASS GAP) was constructed for estimating the overall effect of canopy gaps on deer habitat at the stand level and also to provide managers with a tool to examinine tradeoffs between gap size, density and deer habitat for closed-canopy second growth stands. From this model we estimate as much as a four-fold increase in deer carrying capacity for winter habitats when up to 50% of a given stand has gap habitat. More typically gap treatments have created 5-10% gap habitat in clearcut units which should result in as much as a 50% increase in winter deer carrying capacity. It appears likely that these gaps will persist well into the future of these stands, since there was no significant increase in tree saplings following gap treatment, and there was no detectable influence of gap size on vegetation response. It will be highly desirable to continue monitoring canopy gap treatments to determine the overall longevities of these gaps, to determine the functional upper limit of gap size, and to determine the best ways to incorporate these treatments into overall stand and landscape management in the region. Scientific and Management Context One of the most difficult and long-standing conservation issues facing residents and land managers in Southeast Alaska has been the log-term impact of clearcut logging old-growth forests on wildlife habitat. Studies dating back to the 1960’s and 1970’s documented how logging has the potential to negatively effect many species of interest such as Sitka black- tailed deer, wolves, and goshawks in this region (TLMP planning documents, Wallmo and Schoen 1979, Alaback 1982, Hanley et al. 1985). Over 400,000 acres of highly productive, old-growth temperate rainforest in southeast Alaska have been logged since 1950. This timber harvest has been concentrated in the most productive and economically valuable forest stands at low elevations which have historically been important areas for people in local communities for hunting and subsistence, and as habitats for critical 2 wildlife species. Over half of the timber harvest has taken place on one island – Prince of Wales, in southern Southeast Alaska, since it has the largest concentration of easily accessible productive forest habitats in the region. In Southeast Alaska there are many specific ecological factors which explain why logging can have such a negative impact on key wildlife species in this region. Most logging has occurred in low-elevation valley bottoms (<1000’) which provide critical habitat for wildlife, especially during times of heavy snow cover. Removal of old-growth forest and its replacement by second-growth forest affects winter habitat for deer in two specific ways: loss of snow shedding capability of complex old-growth canopies (effects mobility and foraging efficiency of deer) and loss of a productive understory plant community (provides forage quality and quantity). Although clearcut harvesting does produce an immediate flush of high quality understory biomass, it typically lasts only 10-25 years, and is not available to deer during the periods of heavy snow. The greatest impact occurs three or more decades after logging, during the “stem exclusion” phase of forest stand development, when the densely stocked and rapidly growing young conifers shade out most of the important plant species for deer and other wildlife species. The stem exclusion phase lasts for as much as 150– 200 years so can create a long-lasting deficit of wildlife habitat for a given watershed or region, unless an effective restoration strategy can be developed (Alaback 1982). Over the succeeding 30 years since this issue of logging impacts has been understood scientifically, most efforts at restoration have centered on using techniques such as silvicultural thinning to stimulate understory vegetation growth (Hanley 2005, McClellan 2005). While thinning can be effective in improving wildlife habitat 5-10 years following treatment, one of the key limitations of this treatment is its relatively short longevity. This should not be too surprising since thinning is an agricultural technique dating back to at least the 1700’s designed to stimulate the growth of crop plants. By thinning a forest, the nutrients and other resources of a given forest are concentrated on a smaller number of trees resulting in increased growth rates and individual tree productivity as predicted by the -3/2 law (e.g. Oliver and Larson 1990). As a by-product, thinning can stimulate understory vegetation at first, since sunlight and nutrients become more available immediately after treatment. Soon, generally not more than 15 years, crop trees expand their branches and create a dense overstory canopy which shades out understory forage plants once again. While more intense thinning treatments (wider average tree spacing) may lengthen this process to a certain extent, data available to date suggests that on productive sites thinnings even up to a spacing of 20’ will still produce only short-term benefits to wildlife habitat (Alaback, unpublished data). One relatively unstudied experimental treatment that appears to hold great merit for improving understory vegetation forage availability and diversity is the creation of artificial canopy gaps. Gaps represent small (<1/2 acre, or less than 160’ in diameter) clearings that simulate wind disturbance or small patch tree mortality characteristic of old 3 growth forests in Southeast Alaska (Juday and Ott 2002). Each gap is large enough to provide enough canopy opening and sunlight to produce significant forage, yet appears to be small enough to prevent a “conifer flush” typical of larger clearcuts or strip thinning prescriptions. Thus, the benefits of understory productivity are expected to last much longer than with conventional thinning. Moreover, understory flora within the gap includes evergreen forbs that represent a critical food source for a number of species in winter, as well as providing for snow interception and thermal cover along the edges. The forest structure created by canopy gaps would be expected to be more similar to the patchy forest conditions that characterize old-growth forests than what would result from any of the thinning treatments that have been studied. Gap thinning applied at a landscape scale, combined with conventional thinning prescriptions, represents an innovation that may meet multiple objectives for conservation of biodiversity and timber management on clearcut landscapes. Only a fraction of the area generally requires a gap treatment (<5-10%), so the additional cost is small compared with the benefit of increased understory productivity and diversity within an otherwise unproductive landscape. Meanwhile, at the same time conventional thinning prescriptions will serve to meet timber management objectives within the larger landscape matrix. Within the managed landscape, this new regime moves beyond the artificial dichotomy of conservation versus development, and toward a more integrated approach where larger landscapes serve to meet multiple biodiversity and resource management objectives. Nearly 600 gaps were installed on Prince of Wales Island from 1983-1993, and over the past few years many more have been installed across the region. The stated objectives are to “maintain forage production and habitat diversity for deer in stands 25 to 35 years old” and to “simulate old growth habitat conditions by opening up holes in the overstory to stimulate production of understory forbs and shrubs while also providing snow intercept”. While opinions of managers and residents vary as to the perceived value of these treatments, there has been no detailed scientific study of the effectiveness of canopy gap treatments in Alaska until we initiated this study in 2008. The Forest Service made two major efforts to monitor a sub-set of those gaps in 1990 and again in 1994 (Demeo 1990, Knotts and Brown 1995). Because of the efforts of the Forest Service to monitor and document these treatments, and the efforts of several forward-thinking managers to carefully archive records and data relating to these treatments we had the unique opportunity to examine the 20 year response of vegetation to canopy gap treatments in this study. 4 Objectives of this study: General: To determine the overall effectiveness of canopy gaps in restoring productivity of understory vegetation and wildlife habitat to second growth stands on Prince of Wales Island. Specifically: 1. Document long- term response of understory vegetation to canopy gap treatments on Prince of Wales Island. 2. Determine the influence of canopy gap size on: a)vegetation composition, b)forage quantity, and c)tree regeneration. 3. Determine long-term effects of thinning on vegetation response to canopy gaps.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Coptis Trifolia Conservation Assessment
    CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT for Coptis trifolia (L.) Salisb. Originally issued as Management Recommendations December 1998 Marty Stein Reconfigured-January 2005 Tracy L. Fuentes USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR COPTIS TRIFOLIA Table of Contents Page List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 2 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 4 I. NATURAL HISTORY............................................................................................................. 6 A. Taxonomy and Nomenclature.......................................................................................... 6 B. Species Description ........................................................................................................... 6 1. Morphology ................................................................................................................... 6 2. Reproductive Biology.................................................................................................... 7 3. Ecological Roles ............................................................................................................. 7 C. Range and Sites
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Resources Studies Final Report
    Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 13234 Botanical Resources Studies Final Report Prepared for: City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department 105 Jarvis Street Sitka, Alaska 99835 Prepared by: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 In association with Lazy Mountain Biological Consulting Inundated club moss (Lycopodiella inundata) January 2014 Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 13234 Botanical Resources Studies - Final Report Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction and Scope of the Studies .............................................................................................. 1 2 Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Literature and Information Review ................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Vegetation Types ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Sensitive and Rare Plant Species ............................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 6 3.2.2 USFS-Designated Sensitive Species ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of Rare Plants of Misty Fiords National Monument, Usda Forest Service, Region Ten
    AN INVENTORY OF RARE PLANTS OF MISTY FIORDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, USDA FOREST SERVICE, REGION TEN A Report by John DeLapp Alaska Natural Heritage Program ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 February 8, 1994 ALASKA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 707 A Street • Anchorage, Alaska 99501 • (907) 279-4523 • Fax (907) 276-6847 Dr. Douglas A. Segar, Director Dr. David C. Duffy, Program Manager (UAA IS AN EO/AA EMPLOYER AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION) 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This cooperative project was the result of many hours of work by people within the Misty Fiords National Monument and the Ketchikan Area of the U.S. Forest Service who were dedicated to our common objectives and we are grateful to them all. Misty Fiords personnel who were key to the initiation and realization of this project include Jackie Canterbury and Don Fisher. Becky Nourse, Mark Jaqua, and Jan Peloskey all provided essential support during the field surveys. Also, Ketchikan Area staff Cole Crocker-Bedford, Michael Brown, and Richard Guhl provided indispensable support. Others outside of the Forest Service have provided assistance, without which this report would not be possible. Of particular note are Dr. David Murray, Dr. Barbara Murray, Carolyn Parker, and Al Batten of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum Herbarium. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Plants of the Muskegs of Southeast Alaska
    The Common Plants of the Muskegs of Southeast Alaska 0. W ayne Robuck .,.;:;~; ;~:_:-., United States PREPARED BY Misce llaneous fftA•\\ D epartment of Forest Serv ice Publication :;,lt&.L.i ' Agriculture Pacifi c Northwest July 1985 Forest and Range ~ [xperiment Station Author 0 . WAYNE ROBUCK has held a seasonal appointment with the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Juneau , Alaska during the past several summers. He is currently a Science Instructor at Longview College, Kansas City, Missouri, 64134. Acknowledgment Illustrations were provided by Laura Dassow of Seattle, Was hington. The Common Plants of the Muskegs of Southeast Alaska by O. Wayne Robuck Abstract This guide identifies 49 common plants of coastal Alaska muskegs. Plants are divided into six major groups: clubmosses, ferns, sedges, herbs, shrubs, and trees. Illustrations and short descriptions of each plant are provided, along with a simplified key to aid in identification. The guide has been prepared with the amateur botanist in mind, and technical terminology has been largely eliminated. A glossary and illustrations are provid- ed to explain the botanical terms used. Keywords: Flora, identification (plant), keys (plant), muskeg, bog plants, Alaska (southeast), southeast Alaska. Contents 1 Introduction 3 How to Use the Guide 6 List of Species 8 List of lllustrated Plant Parts 9 Key for Identification 16 lllustrations of Species (Figures I through 49) 114 lllustrations of Plant Parts (Figures 50 through 74) 122 Glossary 130 Index of Botanical Names Introduction Muskeg is an Algonquian Indian word meaning an area en- tirely devoid of ordinary mineral soil. In a muskeg the upper layers of the ground are composed mainly of living sphagnum moss and the lower layers are composed of a fibrous brown mass of partially disintegrated sphagnum called peat.
    [Show full text]
  • Mossplants(Gametophytes)Havesimple Ing Branchesmayhavesmallrhizoidsorrootlets.Male Liverworts Thallose(Flatbodied)Orleafy
    Plants Bryophyta (division) Moss, tree moss, log moss Eurhynchium moss (musci), liverwort oreganum (hepaticae) Moss (most common species): Antitrichia curtipendula (Hedw.) Brid. Eurhynchium oreganum (Sull.) Jaeg. Hypnum subimponens Lesq. Isothecium myosuroides Brid. Neckera douglasii Hook. Liverwort: Porella navicularis (Lehm. & Lindenb.) Pfeiff Isothecium Frullania nisquallensis Sull. Porella navicularis myosuroides Ecology Description: Photosynthesizing (chlorophyllous) non- vascular plants consisting of liverworts and mosses. Liverworts thallose (flat bodied) or leafy. Moss coloniz- Neckera ing branches may have small rhizoids or rootlets. Male douglasii and female moss plants (gametophytes) have simple leaves; sporophytes: thin stems (seta) emerging from top of female plants, vary in color, topped by a capsule. Capsule oval or long with a lid and an opening (peris- tome) where spores are released. Successional stage: Grow in mid- to late-successional Range and distribution: Range differs among species. forests, require shade. Mosses themselves are coloniz- Most species found in lower elevations of Coast Range ers growing on substrate unoccupied by any other plant. and the west side of Cascade Range from Washington to northern California and in moist, shady pockets in Ecological relations: Bryophytes provide food and western Montana and northern Idaho. habitat for invertebrates and vertebrates, source of readily decomposable organic material, contribute to Associations: Sitka spruce, western hemlock, Pacific nutrient capture and cycling. Certain bryophytes are silver fir zones. Mixed-conifer/hardwood forests in the important air quality indicators, particularly of SO spruce, hemlock, cedar series. Douglas-fir, western 2 pollutants. In areas that have heavy industrialization and redcedar, western hemlock, vine maple, big-leaf maple, air pollution, bryophytes disappear. Bryophytes provide Oregon grape, and western sword fern.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Species Lists from Npspecies As of September 30, 2001 for Denali National Park and Preserve
    Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Species Lists From NPSpecies as of September 30, 2001 For Denali National Park and Preserve A Supplemental Report to the Final Report – Compilation of Existing Species Data In Alaska’s National Parks By Julia Lenz, Tracey Gotthardt, Mike Kelly, and Robert Lipkin Alaska Natural Heritage Program Environment and Natural Resources Institute University of Alaska Anchorage For National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program Alaska Region September 30, 2001 In Partial Completion of Cooperative Agreement #9910-00-013 University of Alaska Anchorage Environment and Natural Resources Institute 707 A St. Anchorage, Alaska 9950 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST ........................................................................ 2 FISH SPECIES LIST ................................................................................................ 63 BIRD SPECIES LIST................................................................................................ 64 MAMMAL SPECIES LIST ...................................................................................... 72 AMPHIBIAN SPECIES LIST................................................................................... 75 i INTRODUCTION This report contains species lists for vascular plant and vertebrate species entered in the National Park Service’s NPSpecies database, by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) for Denali
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT for Coptis Aspleniifolia Salisb
    CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT for Coptis aspleniifolia Salisb. Originally issued as Management Recommendations December 1998 R.D. Lesher and J.A. Henderson Reconfigured-November 2004 Tracy L. Fuentes USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR COPTIS ASPLENIIFOLIA Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 3 SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………...….5 I. NATURAL HISTORY ......................................................................................................... 6 A. Taxonomy and Nomenclature……………………………………………………….……6 B. Species Description ............................................................................................................. 6 1. Morphology………...…………………………………………………………………6 2. Reproductive Biology…………………………………………………………………6 3. Ecological Roles……………………………………………………………………….7 C. Range and Sites……………………………………………………………………………7 D. Habitat Characteristics and Species Abundance ............................................................. 8 II. CURRENT SPECIES SITUATION .................................................................................... 9 A. Status History .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural History of Fern-Leaf Goldthread (Coptis Aspleniifolia) in Juneau, Alaska Authors: Mary F
    Natural History of Fern-leaf Goldthread (Coptis aspleniifolia) in Juneau, Alaska Authors: Mary F. Willson, and Ellen M. Anderson Source: Northwest Science, 81(2) : 163-165 Published By: Northwest Scientific Association URL: https://doi.org/10.3955/0029-344X-81.2.163 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Northwest-Science on 29 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Morton Arboretum Northwest Science Notes The purpose of Notes is to publish papers typically less than five pages long. No specific format or content is required for articles published as Notes, but all will be peer-reviewed and must be scientifically credible. Authors may contact the Editor about the suitability of manuscripts for this section. Mary F. Willson1, 5230 Terrace Place, Juneau, Alaska 99801 and Ellen M.
    [Show full text]
  • Specialist Report Outline
    Botanical Specialist Report Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Specialist Report Environmental Assessment S.F. Stillaguamish Vegetation Project Special Status and Invasive Plants Shauna Hee Draft 09/22/2017 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies ................................................................................. 3 4. Relevant Standards and Guidelines .............................................................................................. 4 5. Other Programmatic Direction ..................................................................................................... 4 6. Definitions of Technical Terms .................................................................................................... 4 7. Management Requirements and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 5 8. Analysis Methodology, Assumptions ........................................................................................... 7 9. Affected Environment .................................................................................................................. 8 Special Status Plants ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Plants of the Muskegs of Southeast Alaska O
    The Common Plants of the Muskegs of Southeast Alaska O. Wayne Robuck .....,,--,;~;;"-- United States PREPAREIJBY Miscellaneous /~" ~i~ Department of ForestService Publication ~g~.4~.J~..,,~iAgriculture Pacific Northwest July 1985 Forest and Range Experiment Station Author O. WAYNE ROBUCK has held a seasonal appointment with the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska during the past several summers. He is currently a Science Instructor at Longview College, Kansas Cit~; Missouri, 64134. Acknowledgment Illustrations were provided by Laura Dassow of Seattle, Washington. The Common Plants of the Muskegs of Southeast Alaska by O. Wayne Robuck Abstract This guide identifies 49 common plants of coastal Alaska muskegs. Plants are divided into six major groups: clubmosses, ferns, sedges, herbs, shrubs, and trees. Illustrations and short descriptions of each plant are provided, along with a simplified key to aid in identification. The guide has been prepared with the amateur botanist in mind, and technical terminology has been largely eliminated. A glossary and illustrations are provid- ed to explain the botanical terms used. Keywords: Flora, identification (plant), keys (plant), muskeg, bog plants, Alaska (southeast), southeast Alaska. Contents 1 Introduction 3 How to Use the Guide 6 List of Species 8 List of lllustrated Plant Parts 9 Key for Identification 16 lllustrations of Species (Figures I through 49) 114 lllustrations of Plant Parts (Figures 50 through 74) 122 Glossary 130 Index of Botanical Names Introduction Muskeg is an Algonquian Indian word meaning an area en- tirely devoid of ordinary mineral soil. In a muskeg the upper layers of the ground are composed mainly of living sphagnum moss and the lower layers are composed of a fibrous brown mass of partially disintegrated sphagnum called peat.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Forest Products
    United States Department of Agriculture SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS Forest Service Species Information Guide Pacific Northwest Research Station for the Pacific Northwest General Technical Report PNW-GTR-513 Nan C. Vance, Melissa Borsting, David Pilz, and September 2001 Jim Freed Authors Nan C. Vance is a principle plant physiologist, and David Pilz is a botanist, For- estry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Melissa Borsting is a graduate student, College of Forest Resources, University of Wash- ington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195; and Jim Freed is an extension special forest products specialist, Washington State University, PO Box 4703, Olympia, WA 98504. Disclaimer This publication reports research and management information involving mush- room and plant harvesting. It neither recommends the use and ingestion of mush- rooms and plants nor implies that using wild plants and mushrooms is without risks. CAUTION: Mushroom and wild plant consumption can pose a serious, even fatal, risk to humans. It is strongly recommended that you spend your first collecting season using field identification guides and collecting with an expert if you intend to collect wild plants or mushrooms to eat. Abstract Vance, Nan C.; Borsting, Melissa; Pilz, David; Freed, Jim. 2001. Special forest products: species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 169 p. This guide is a collection of information about economically important vascular and nonvascular plants and fungi found in the Pacific Northwest that furnish special forest products. Many of these plants and fungi are also found in Alaska, northern Idaho, and western Montana.
    [Show full text]